Do domestic structures define the test rankings?

Just looking at the four day competitions of the leading teams like SA, England, India and Aus and the pattern is quite clear, they all seem to have the best structures in place, i don't know a great deal about how SL and Pakistans work but i know ours is dominated by a team (Jamaica) who have only got two players in our test team and is made up of mostly regional bullies, our competition mainly relies on individual brilliance rather than great team performances, and thus when those individuals fail to fire a game can be over in two and a half days,

NZ only has six teams involved in theirs and just looking at a few of the current games there seems to be a lot of old ex NZ players doing all the damage rather than youngsters, but perhaps that was just a one off game i looked at,

The question is though can a team really reach number one in the rankings if it's domestic system is weak?

Well the new ball bowlers in NZ are so amazing that they rip through the top 5 effortlessly, leaving the bottom 6 to score the majority of the runs. So batsmen are ****ed and bowlers (excluding the top few) are ****ed when come across decent batsmen who can play swing, setting the Blackcaps up beautifully.

In answer to your question, no. A country needs a strong domestic game in order to produce quality players.

Well the new ball bowlers in NZ are so amazing that they rip through the top 5 effortlessly, leaving the bottom 6 to score the majority of the runs. So batsmen are ****ed and bowlers (excluding the top few) are ****ed when come across decent batsmen who can play swing, setting the Blackcaps up beautifully.

In answer to your question, no. A country needs a strong domestic game in order to produce quality players.

I'm really not sure about that, we've produced Roach, Narine, Darren Bravo, Powell etc recently and yet our four day competition has been as weak as it's ever been, the gist of my point though remains that the teams with the best structures are the ones who are dominating right now, so in essence one wonders if a team with an average structure can ever rise up in the current climate.

In answer to your question, no. A country needs a strong domestic game in order to produce quality players.

Not necessarily. Look at Barbados in particular and the disproportionate number of great players that have been produced by such a tiny island. There's nothing that says that great systems need to produce great players.

Of course, having a strong system in place makes it more likely that a team will produce better players (it's no coincidence that the top 3 in the world are South Africa, England and Australia), but there's no reason why New Zealand won't be number 1 in 10 years time because right now they have a 13 year old who'll be a world class batsman, a 14 year old who's the next McGrath etc. The two biggest differences a strong system makes is nurturing potential world class talent so that the players in question maximise their potential, but more importantly, it produces a number of really good players. Australia have lost McGrath, Gillespie and Lee, but in their place they've produced Siddle, Starc and Hilfenhaus, which is a pretty decent attack and certainly Test class.

There is a lot of truth in what you say. But I think it might almost be the counter that is probably the better question, ie "does a poor domestic game inhibit the development of quality players?"

I work in government, and the best advice I was ever given was "at best good government policy will only ever result in marginal improvements to people's lives - but the reason you should work hard to develop good policy is because bad policy will always make people's lives much, much worse". And I think domestic cricket arrangements work the same.

Having the same domestic structures as South Africa is never going to magically produce a kid with all the natural talents of Dale Steyn. But poor domestic arrangements might mean that the kid will never get to demonstrate those talents, or to develop them properly, or remain interested and challenged enough to kick on.

Maybe you've just been lucky to have some naturally gifted athletes comes through despite the lack of strong FC structure? A strong FC structure could well hone players who are less naturally talented into decent players by exposure to that tough grind?

>>>>>>WHHOOOOOOOOOSHHHHHHH>>>>>>Fascist Dictator of the Heath Davis Appreciation SocietySupporting Petone's Finest since the very start - Iain O'Brien
Adam Wheater - Another batsman off the Essex production line
Also Supporting the All Time #1 Batsman of All Time Ever - Jacques Kallis and the much maligned Peter Siddle.

Maybe you've just been lucky to have some naturally gifted athletes comes through despite the lack of strong FC structure? A strong FC structure could well hone players who are less naturally talented into decent players by exposure to that tough grind?

None of the players he's mentioned are anywhere near being great either. They're promising.

None of the players he's mentioned are anywhere near being great either. They're promising.

But what about someone like, say, Brian Lara. Would he have been less successful if he hadn't gone to play for Warwickshire in 1994? I mean, he was immensely talented anyway but did the county grind help hone his skills?

I was going to give a simple yes, but then I remembered our pace academy and read the below post:

Originally Posted by Binkley

There is a lot of truth in what you say. But I think it might almost be the counter that is probably the better question, ie "does a poor domestic game inhibit the development of quality players?"

I work in government, and the best advice I was ever given was "at best good government policy will only ever result in marginal improvements to people's lives - but the reason you should work hard to develop good policy is because bad policy will always make people's lives much, much worse". And I think domestic cricket arrangements work the same.

Having the same domestic structures as South Africa is never going to magically produce a kid with all the natural talents of Dale Steyn. But poor domestic arrangements might mean that the kid will never get to demonstrate those talents, or to develop them properly, or remain interested and challenged enough to kick on.

Yep, nailed it. Competent structure will nuture guys to their ceilings if those players put the hard yards in, but incompetent structures definitely destroy players. Witness our biomechanics program and the effect it has had on bowler injuries and our batsmen.

As soon as we dismantled that useless academy we got a glut of flawed but talented bowlers.

So the hands off approach, as also seen in the West Indies according to WW, can produce players even if only because it doesn't allow incompetence to mess with youngsters. You won't get the consistent or ready-for-tests-when-picked quality of the Australian 1990-2008 system, or the current SA and English systems (to an extent) because the players haven't had their rough edges polished, but the hands off approach is infinitely better than letting idiots rule the roost.

So I guess the short version of my post is good domestic structure produces the best cricketers, hands off structure produces good cricketers infrequently, and terrible domestic structure ruins every cricketer if given the opportunity.

Originally Posted by Athlai

Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.

Originally Posted by Athlai

Well yeah Tendy is probably better than Bradman, but Bradman was 70 years ago, if he grew up in the modern era he'd still easily be the best. Though he wasn't, can understand the argument for Tendy even though I don't agree.

Maybe you've just been lucky to have some naturally gifted athletes comes through despite the lack of strong FC structure? A strong FC structure could well hone players who are less naturally talented into decent players by exposure to that tough grind?

The sad and irreversible truth is that the most naturally gifted players - ones who could otherwise bowl at 95mph or have world-class reaction times and reflexes - are sinking baskets in the NBA as we speak.

There's not a lot to gain financially by focusing on cricket, let alone in terms of fame or recognition - I reckon the average NBA player would get twice the amount of fan mail than Kemar Roach.

The only people who would persist are people with a deep, unabiding love for the game. Unfortunately, as our forum proves, most of those people aren't that good.

"The Australian cricket captain is the Prime Minister Australia wishes it had. Steve Waugh is that man, Michael Clarke is not." - Jarrod Kimber

But what about someone like, say, Brian Lara. Would he have been less successful if he hadn't gone to play for Warwickshire in 1994? I mean, he was immensely talented anyway but did the county grind help hone his skills?

Yeah thats a very interesting point, i think like so many of our heroes of the past county cricket played a big role in their developement, even two of our current bunch (Darren Bravo and Kemar Roach) were different players after their county spells, Darren has hit four tons since then and Roach has turned into one of the best pacers in the world right now, summed up by him apparently having the best strike rate of any pacer this year.